ORDER : This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 17.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.15/2010 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kollegal (for short “the trial Court”), whereby the application, I.A.No.18 filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.2, 3, 7 and 8 was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record indicates that it is not in dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 10 for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and other reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioners were arrayed as defendant Nos.2, 3, 7 and 8 and they contested the same by filing their written statement. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 were arrayed as remaining defendants in the suit. At the stage of evidence of defendant No.3, the petitioners moved the instant application, I.A.No.18, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking to amend their written statement. 4. By way of proposed amendment, the petitioners specifically contended that at the time of filing the written statement, they were not aware that the suit schedule properties were the self acquired properties of Kaligounder, husband of defendant No.2, who executed a Will dated 12.05.1975 bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.2 and consequently, it was not possible for them to put forth the said plea with regard to nature and character of the suit schedule properties as well as in relation to the said Will, when the written statement was originally filed. It was also contended that since the said Will pertains to suit schedule properties, the proposed amendment was necessary and relevant for the purpose of adjudication of issues in controversy between the parties. It was further contended that the proposed amendment by seeking to incorporating averments with regard to the Will and that the suit schedule properties were self-acquired properties of Kaligounder go to the root of the defence of the petitioners and consequently, if the petitioners are not permitted to amend their written statement, they would be put to injury and hardship and the justice would suffer. 5. 5. The said application, I.A.No.18 having been opposed by respondent Nos.1 and 2-the plaintiffs, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the said application inter alia holding that the petitioners had admitted in their written statement that the suit schedule properties were co-parcenary properties and the proposed amendment putting forth an inconsistent stand to the effect that the properties were self-acquired properties of late Kaligounder was not permissible and the same was liable to be rejected. Aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 6. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners and referring to various documents produced by the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the written statement was originally filed by the petitioners, they did not have custody or possession of the said Will dated 12.05.1975 executed by late Kaligounder, husband of defendant No.2 and consequently, it was not possible for them to put forth contentions regarding the said Will as well as contention with regard to nature and character of the suit schedule properties, It was submitted that the said Will was traced and found by the petitioners only just prior to filing the application and this contention having been specifically narrated in the affidavit in support of the application, the trial Court committed error in rejecting the said application. It was further contended that it is open for the petitioners to take alternative and inconsistent defences in their written statement as held by various Courts including the Apex Court as well as this Court and consequently, the impugned order rejecting the application cannot be countenanced. It was pointed out that by way of the proposed amendment, the petitioner did not seek to withdraw any admission made by them in the written statement but only sought to explain the nature of suit schedule properties which were self-acquired properties and plead about the said Will, which was found just prior to filing the application, I.A.No.18 by them before the trial Court. 7. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs submits that in the original written statement, the petitioners had categorically and unequivocally admitted that the suit schedule properties were co-parcenery properties and as such, they were not entitled to withdraw or resile from the said admission as rightly held by the trial Court and as such, the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. While it is true that a party who has made an admission in the pleadings is not entitled to resile from the same, it is always open for a party to explain the said admission and produce material and plead additional facts for the said purpose. In the instant case, it is the specific contention urged by the petitioners that at the time of filing original written statement, the said Will dated 12.05.1975 alleged to have been executed by Kaligounder which indicates that suit schedule properties were his separate and self-acquired properties was not in their custody and possession and that the same was traced just prior to filing the instant application, I.A.No.18 for amendment of the written statement. It is well settled a defendant is entitled to take up alternative and inconsistent pleas and in fact, a defendant can take up all defences permissible in law for the purpose of non-suiting the plaintiff. 10. It is well settled a defendant is entitled to take up alternative and inconsistent pleas and in fact, a defendant can take up all defences permissible in law for the purpose of non-suiting the plaintiff. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, as pointed out above, it is the specific contention of the petitioners that at the time of filing written statement, they were not aware of the Will dated 12.05.1975 alleged to have been executed by Kaligounder in favour of defendant No.2 and this ignorance on the part of the petitioners about the properties being self-acquired properties of Kaligounder as well as their ignorance about the Will has resulted in the averment in their written statement that the properties are co-parcenary properties; the said fact in the written statement to the effect that the properties were coparcenary properties was made in complete ignorance of the Will as well as contents of the Will and consequently, the petitioners seek to explain the said admission with reference to the Will and the contents of the said Will in order to contend that the properties were self-acquired properties of Kaligounder and that the same had been bequeathed in favour of defendant No.2 under the said Will dated 12.05.1975. In view of the explanation offered by the petitioners, it can not be said that the petitioners are attempting to resile from or withdraw any admission made by them. 11. It is also well settled that at the time of considering the application for amendment of pleadings, it is not open for the Court to go into the veracity and merits/demerits of the contents of the proposed amendment. Under these circumstances, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application for amendment filed by the petitioners seeking to amend the plaint, warranting interference of this Court by way of this petition. 12. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 17.01.2015 passed on I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.15/2010 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kollegal, is set aside. (iii) Consequently, I.A.No.18 filed by the petitioners is hereby allowed. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs to file their reply/rejoinder to the amended written statement. (ii) The impugned order dated 17.01.2015 passed on I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.15/2010 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kollegal, is set aside. (iii) Consequently, I.A.No.18 filed by the petitioners is hereby allowed. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs to file their reply/rejoinder to the amended written statement. (v) It is made clear that all rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same including various contentions urged by the petitioners in their written statement or the amended written statement.